HAWKINS-DAVISON HOUSES
                               FREDERICA
                       St. Simons Island, Georgia


                             Reprinted from
                    THE GEORGIA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
                      Vol. XL No. 3    Sept. 1956

                           Publication No. 2
                       FORT FREDERICA ASSOCIATION




               The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia:
                       The Hawkins-Davison Houses


                       By Margaret Davis Cate[1]

The recent excavation of the building sites in the old Town of Frederica
has stirred interest in this now “Dead Town” and in the fortification,
Fort Frederica.

Fort Frederica, located at a bluff on the western shore of St. Simons
Island, Georgia, and on the Inland Waterway, was founded in 1736 by the
British under the leadership of James Edward Oglethorpe, as an outpost
to protect the colony of Georgia and the other British possessions to
the north against the Spaniards in Florida. It became one of the most
expensive fortifications built by the British in America and the
military headquarters for a string of fortifications erected along this
southern frontier of Britain’s provinces in North America.

The Town of Frederica, adjacent to the fort, was settled by forty
families brought here at that time. These settlers built Fort Frederica
and manned the fortifications until the coming of the regiment of
British soldiers two years later.

Occupying about thirty-five acres of land, the town was half a hexagon
in shape, divided by Talbott Street, generally called Broad Street, into
two wards—North Ward and South Ward—and was laid out into eighty-four
lots, which were granted to the settlers and on which they built their
homes. About half a mile from Frederica, and surrounding the town on
three sides, were the garden lots while the fifty-acre tracts granted
the settlers were located in various parts of St. Simons Island.

Later, a larger area of safety being necessary, the entire town was
fortified and surrounded by a moat, the banks of which formed the
ramparts of the town. A wall of posts ten feet high, forming the
stockade and palisade, flanked both sides of the moat, with five-sided
towers on the corner bastions. Entrance into the town was through the
Town Gate.

This old Town of Frederica was a thriving community in its day. The
streets were lined with houses, some built of brick, some of tabby, and
others of wood. John and Charles Wesley, founders of Methodism, who came
to Georgia in 1736 as missionaries of the Church of England, were in
charge of religious affairs. The town government consisted of a
magistrate, recorder, constables, and tythingmen. There were two
taverns, an apothecary shop, and numerous other shops and stores. The
trades and professions were represented by the hatter, tailor, dyer,
weaver, tanner, shoemaker, cordwainer, saddler, sawyer, woodcutter,
carpenter, coachmaker, bricklayer, pilot, surveyor, accountant, baker,
brewer, tallow candler, cooper, blacksmith, locksmith, brazier, miller,
millwright, wheelwright, husbandman, doctor, surgeon, midwife,
Oglethorpe’s secretary, Keeper of the King’s Stores, and officers of
Oglethorpe’s Regiment. Frederica was a barracks town, so that its
business life was dependent on the money brought in by the soldiers of
the Regiment.

After the British victory at Bloody Marsh and the defeat of the enemy in
the Spanish Invasion of 1742 (War of Jenkins’ Ear), peace was made with
Spain by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748; and the regiment of
British soldiers was disbanded the following year.

Having gloriously achieved the purpose for which it was built, Frederica
now became a “Dead Town.” Gone were the soldiers who had given it life,
followed by the tradesmen and other settlers. The houses fell into
decay, brick and tabby walls tumbled, and fire took its toll. Much of
the old brick and tabby was hauled away and used in structures erected
during the plantation era and, in time, no evidence remained on the
surface to show that these houses had ever existed. Other families came,
built their houses on these sites, and for generations lived within the
confines of the old town.

Of the several buildings Oglethorpe had erected within Fort Frederica
the ruin of only one remained and this was situated on the property of
Mrs. Belle Stevens Taylor. In 1903, Mrs. Taylor, through her friendship
for Mrs. Georgia Page Wilder, President of the Georgia Society of the
Colonial Dames of America, gave to this Society the plot of ground on
which stood this ruin, which the Colonial Dames repaired and saved for
posterity.

    [Illustration: _Map of Frederica made in 1796 by Joshua Miller,
    Deputy Surveyor, Glynn County, Georgia. Original in Georgia
    Department of Archives and History, Atlanta_]

Four decades later, under the leadership of the late Judge and Mrs. S.
Price Gilbert of Atlanta and Alfred W. Jones of Sea Island, the Fort
Frederica Association raised the funds necessary for acquiring the lands
occupied by the old fort and town. In 1945 the property thus acquired
was taken over by the National Park Service and is now known as the Fort
Frederica National Monument.

Little was known about the lay-out of Frederica. Twenty-five years ago
the only published map which gave information about the pattern of the
town was that which forms the frontispiece for the chapter on
“Frederica” in _Dead Towns of Georgia_ by Charles C. Jones, Jr.[2]
Though this map gave the plan of the old town, it was too small to be of
any value.

The only maps available which gave any detailed information about the
fort and the town were those made in 1796 by Joshua Miller, Deputy
Surveyor of Glynn County, Georgia. These were made by order of the
General Assembly of Georgia, which named Commissioners for the Town of
Frederica, directing them to have a resurvey made to lay out the town
“as nearly as possible to the original plan thereof....”[3] One was a
detailed map of the Town of Frederica, showing the lay-out of the town,
with the streets, wards and lots, together with the number of each lot.
Then, for the first time was it possible to locate the exact lot on
which any particular settler had lived.[4]

In 1952 original manuscript maps of Fort Frederica and the Town of
Frederica, dated 1736, were found in the John Carter Brown Library,
Brown University, Providence, R. I. The legend states that these maps
were made “by a Swiss engineer,” whom the author has identified as
Samuel Augspourger, a native of Switzerland, who was surveyor at
Frederica in 1736.[5] The Augspourger map of Fort Frederica is most
valuable, giving information about the fort, parapets, palisades, moat,
and other details which had hitherto been unknown. However,
Augspourger’s map of the Town of Frederica gave no information as to the
lot numbers, names of streets, and other details which were desired.

Information about the Frederica settlers and their way of life has been
buried in old letters and other records. Only by careful reading of
available material in the scores of published and unpublished volumes of
the colonial records of Georgia could small bits of such information be
found and pieced together to give the picture of early days at
Frederica. It is known that records were kept of the lot owners, for
Oglethorpe wrote the Trustees in 1738, “I send you a Plan of ye Town of
Frederica with the Granted Lotts & the names of the Possessors”[6] but
this list has not yet been located among Georgia’s early records.

Even though these volumes of the colonial records contained the names of
many of the settlers and told of the part they played in the life of
Frederica, rarely did they contain information as to the number of the
lot which such individuals occupied. Not until 1947 when the University
of Georgia purchased a manuscript collection of Georgiana, known as the
Egmont Papers of the Phillipps Collection, did this definite information
become available. From material in this collection Dr. E. Merton Coulter
and Dr. Albert B. Saye edited in 1949 _A List of the Early Settlers of
Georgia_, which gives the lot numbers granted these settlers and makes
it possible to locate each individual on the proper lot.

It is believed that this list was compiled in England by Viscount
Percival, Earl of Egmont, President of the Board of Trustees for the
Founding of the Colony of Georgia, from information sent over from
Georgia from time to time. As is so often the case with such records,
there were errors. One such instance is the listing of lot number 2,
South Ward, Frederica, for Samuel Davison and the same lot for Dr.
Thomas Hawkins. Since the Hawkins and Davison families came to Frederica
at the same time and were among the first settlers of Frederica, it is
obvious that both of them could not have had lot number 2, South Ward.

Davison left Georgia in 1741,[7] moving to Charleston, S. C., and Dr.
Hawkins returned to England in 1743.[8] In 1767 George Mackintosh
petitioned for lot number 1, South Ward of Frederica “formerly belonging
to Dr. Hawkins.”[9] His petition was not granted. In January of the
following year Christian Perkins,[10] widow, petitioned the Colonial
Council, stating that “there was a Lot in Frederica known by the Name of
Dr. Hawkins’s which was left in the Care and Possession of the
Petitioner’s late Husband by John Hawkins the said Doctor’s Brother who
was supposed to be entitled thereto That her said Husband from the Time
the said Lot was so left with him to the Time of his Death (being many
Years) had the Possession thereof and constantly accounted for the Taxes
and other Provincial Duties,” and asked that it be granted to her.[11]
This was done, the lot being recorded as number 1, South Ward.[12] Thus,
in this 1768 record we have proof that lot number 1, South Ward belonged
to Dr. Hawkins, leaving Samuel Davison in undisputed possession of lot
number 2.

The families who occupied these two lots were different in every way.
Dr. Thomas Hawkins and his wife, Beatre, who occupied lot number 1, were
troublemakers; in fact, Mrs. Hawkins was known as “a mean woman.”[13]
Samuel Davison, with his wife, Susanna, their little daughter, Susanna
(born in England), and sons, John and Samuel (born at Frederica),[14]
who lived on lot number 2, were good citizens and well liked by the
other settlers.

Dr. Hawkins was one of the important personages in the community. Not
only was he the surgeon in Oglethorpe’s Regiment and the medical doctor
for Frederica and the other settlements nearby, but he kept the
apothecary shop, and was First Bailiff. His house on Broad Street was
his residence as well as headquarters for his work. Here he saw patients
and dispensed drugs from his apothecary shop. He claimed his
improvements were “superior to any other.”[15]

In addition to his pay as surgeon in the Regiment, Hawkins received a
salary of thirty pounds a year as First Bailiff and was allowed twelve
pounds, three shillings, four pence, for clothing and maintaining a
servant, together with an allowance of four pounds for the expense of
“public rejoicings, Anniversary Days, etc.” Also, he had an allowance of
ten pounds for acting as correspondent with William Stephens of
Savannah.[16]

The Trustees sent him quantities of drugs, sugar, and tallow, to use in
his work. To enable him to go to Darien and other parts of the Colony to
visit the sick, he was allowed twenty-five pounds a year for the upkeep
of his boat, as well as the services of two of the Trustees’ servants.
Hawkins made charges for equipment for this boat, such as blocks and
rope, which the Trustees refused to pay. Likewise they refused to pay
the charge of one shilling for sharpening two surgeon’s saws, and
fifteen shillings for cleaning and grinding his surgical instruments. In
fact, he never seemed able to put through an expense account![17]

When he was not paid the sums he claimed, he wrote: “I continue the care
of the sick, widows, servants and Indians and objects of charity as well
as the bailiffship but cannot get regular payment....” He further
claimed “my constitution [is] ruined by fatigue; character hurted by
Malicious Aspersions, My Dues kept from me.”[18]

There were those, however, who did not think he had earned all he
claimed. Thomas Jones wrote that “he had not administered one dose of
physic to any poor person but refused, unless paid for which has been
done by contributions from the inhabitants....”[19]

Oglethorpe defended Hawkins and wrote the Trustees: “I do well know that
he has attended the Sick very carefully and that he constantly went up
to Darien when I was here, and I suppose he did so when I was not, It is
no little thing to go in open Boats in all Weathers near Twenty Miles &
no small Expence to hire Men and Boats ... for tho he is very capable of
Doing his Duty as a Surgeon he is very ignorant in Accounts.”[20]

Perkins, Moore, Calwell and Allen were among the Frederica settlers who
had altercations with Hawkins and two of his neighbors wrote that “if it
were not for debts and demands made on Hawkins there would be little use
for Court at Frederica.” In 1742 he was removed from office as First
Bailiff.[21]

Beatre Hawkins and her friend, Anne Welch, wife of John Welch, who with
their three children lived a few doors down the street on lot number 7,
South Ward[22] thoroughly disliked the Wesleys. The Hawkins and Welch
families had crossed the Atlantic in the same boat with Oglethorpe and
the Wesleys. During this voyage religious services had been held for the
passengers and Mrs. Hawkins had seemed greatly moved by John Wesley’s
preaching and professed to be awakened to a new and better life. Charles
Wesley, observing her actions, saw through her hypocrisy and warned his
brother that her repentance was not genuine. She learned of this and,
so, hated the Wesleys.[23]

After their arrival at Frederica these women attributed Oglethorpe’s
puritanical sternness to the moral and religious influence of the
Wesleys and conspired to bring about a break between Oglethorpe and the
clergymen. They fabricated a fantastic story of their indiscretions and
“confessed” these “misdeeds” to Charles Wesley, then told Oglethorpe
that Charles Wesley was spreading this tale. It was not until John
Wesley arrived from Savannah that the matter was cleared up, the truth
known, and mutual respect restored between Oglethorpe and the Wesley
brothers, a regard which was maintained throughout the remainder of
their long lives.

After a few months in Georgia, Charles Wesley returned to England.
However, Mrs. Hawkins persisted in her efforts to persecute John Wesley.
On one of his later visits to Frederica she sent for him. When he
entered the Hawkins house, she, brandishing a pistol in one hand and a
pair of scissors in the other, threatened to shoot him. Wesley held her
hands so that she could not use either weapon; whereupon, she seized his
cassock with her teeth and tore both sleeves to pieces.[24]

Her altercations with her Frederica neighbors caused one of them to
write, “If that W[oma]n is to be punished in this World, for her
Wickedness, how dreadful will the example be? I grow sick with the
thoughts of her,” and it was said, too, that Dr. Hawkins was “not atall
beloved by the Inhabitants.”[25]

The Davison family, on the other hand, were good neighbors and were well
liked by the other settlers. Charles Wesley called Davison “my good
Samaritan” and wrote of him and his wife, “to their care, under God, I
owe my life....” Davison was said to be “one of the first of the
industrious villagers.”[26]

In addition to keeping a tavern, Davison was Second Constable. In 1739
he was named Overseer of the Trustees’ Servants at a salary of
twenty-five pounds a year, but Hawkins took this position away from him
and named to this office one of the Trustees’ servants who had just
arrived from Germany and spoke hardly a word of English. In 1740 Davison
was named Searcher of Ships at a salary of forty pounds a year.[27]

For a time Davison seemed to enjoy life at Frederica. Writing to friends
in London in 1738, he said that “we all of us here have been wonderfully
protected by Almighty providence, very few of us have died, & none
sickly; we have great encrease of Children, & women bear, that in Europe
were thought past their time; The Cattle and Hogs yt. were given us on
Credit, thrive very well, & Fowls in great abundance, & one may venture
to say yt. ye place is blest on our Accounts....”

To another friend, he wrote “my crop wch. was but very small on Acct. of
our being kept back in planting Season by ye alarms of the Spaniards, ye
land I got cleared being very good, gave me great hopes; now this Year I
have got at both plantations 6 acres & 38 perches of Land well fenced
about 6 & 7 foot high; & planted, wch. I hope in God will afford me & my
family Bread;... My wife was brought to bed of a John in July last, a
fine thriving child, & little Susan grows apace.”[28]

However, in 1741, Davison with his family left Frederica and moved to
Charleston, S. C., complaining of the treatment he had received from Dr.
Hawkins and giving this as his reason for leaving.[29] It is not known
when Samuel Davison died, but his wife, Susanna, died in St. Bartholomew
Parish, Colleton County, S. C. in 1761. Her will (on file in the South
Carolina Archives, Columbia) names Susanna (who married John Smith),
John, and Samuel, the children who had lived at Frederica; and William,
who was born after they moved to South Carolina.

It was known that Hawkins and Davison had adjoining lots, that the
houses had a “party wall,” that they were built of brick and three
stories high. When funds were made available for excavating a small area
in the Town of Frederica, it was decided to begin with these two lots.
The location of the “party wall” would fix the lot line between these
two lots, thus, making it possible to set up the exact boundaries of all
the Frederica lots.




    The Excavation of The Hawkins-Davison Houses, Frederica National
                  Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia


                      By Charles H. Fairbanks[30]

The object of archaeological excavations is usually to discover general
information on the way of life of some people dead for long periods of
time. In the case of these excavations we were faced with a more
detailed problem, that of locating the remains of the Hawkins-Davison
houses, whose existence and construction type was quite well known.

Fort Frederica National Monument is located on the western edge of St.
Simons Island. It was established as a national monument to preserve the
remains of the important 18th century fort and town founded by James
Edward Oglethorpe as a defense against the Spanish in Florida. Only part
of one building in the fort and part of the regimental barracks are
still standing. The purposes of the excavation were to attempt to locate
enough colonial features so that the original layout of the town could
be tied to the existing topography, and to provide a field exhibit of
colonial architecture. The documentary information on the town was
compiled by National Park Service Collaborator Margaret Davis Cate. Mrs.
Cate, in addition to her general research on the Town of Frederica,
prepared a detailed evaluation of the documents pertaining to each lot.
This was extremely helpful in appraising the historic material and
formed the basis of the plan for excavating, as well as for this paper.
In addition to the letters, the documents contained the Miller Map of
1796 which showed the arrangement of the lots, streets, fort, and
barracks as well as showing the size of the lots and the width of the
streets. The map contained certain inaccuracies and did not show any
point that could be accurately located at the present time. In addition,
it did not show the location of any house in the town. For these reasons
it was felt desirable to excavate a house site in the town that might be
identified through descriptions in the colonial documents. The
Hawkins-Davison houses filled these conditions, being built of brick and
having a common “party wall.” Thus it was felt that these houses would
probably yield identifiable remains and it might be possible to locate
the land lot lines and the alignment of Broad Street, the main street of
the town.

Dr. Thomas Hawkins, town physician and one of the magistrates, was a
member of the “Great Embarkation” of 1735 which arrived in February,
1736. His household consisted of his wife, Beatre, and servants Thomas
Ayot and Richard Carpenter.[31] Work was started on the houses for the
first settlers in February of 1736 and seems to have consisted at first
of simple huts of poles covered with palmetto thatch. Francis Moore, on
his arrival at Frederica in March of 1736 says that “Each family had a
bower of palmetto leaves, finished upon the back street in their own
lands; the side towards the front street was set out for their houses.
These palmetto bowers were very convenient shelters, being tight in the
hardest rains; they were about twenty foot long, and fourteen foot wide,
and in regular rows, looked very pretty, the palmetto leaves lying
smooth and handsome, and of a good color. The whole appeared something
like a camp; for the bowers looked like tents, only being larger, and
covered with palmetto leaves instead of canvas.”[32] By November of 1736
the first two houses were nearly complete, three stories high, made of
brick.[33] It is possible that these two were the Hawkins and Davison
houses. Dr. Hawkins said, in a letter to the Trustees in November, 1737,
that he had added half as much more to the length of his house.[34] In
August of 1740 he had made another addition valued at £60.[35] This
completes the direct mention of buildings and additions to the Hawkins
house but a deposition taken in South Carolina in 1741 describes the two
houses in some detail and is quoted at length:

    [Illustration: _Architectural Drawing of Hawkins-Davison houses.
    Details based on historical documentation and archaeological
    evidence. Abreu & Robson, Architects._]

    [Illustration: _Hawkins-Davison houses from the east. Davison house
    in foreground._]

“John Robertson, late brick layer in Frederica, in Georgia, maketh oath
and saith, that on or about the ninth of August last, being at work on
Mr. Davison’s house, adjoining to Mr. Hawkin’s, at the said Frederica,
on which the said Davison was putting a new roof, he did propose to the
said Hawkins, to take up a few shingles, and a gutter belonging to the
said Hawkins’s house, and put the said gutter on the party-wall, to
which the said Hawkins agreed; saying that it would be a benefit to him,
because he must be obliged to alter the roof of his own house soon: and
the said Davison being to lay down a new gutter at his own expense, it
would serve for both houses, and which must save one half the expense of
the said gutter to the said Hawkins. But the said Hawkins being out of
town, a day or two after General Oglethorpe sent to the said Davison, to
forbid him to touch anything belonging to the said Hawkins’s house,
though the said gutter encroached fourteen inches on the said Davison’s
ground, and the said Oglethorpe’s own carpenter said it might be done in
a few hours, and without harm to the Doctor.* [Hawkins—in footnote].
That the said Oglethorpe did soon after, on the same day, stand on the
sill of the said Hawkins’s window, and put his head up betwixt the
joists of the said Davison’s house, and ordered Mr. Cannon to build the
said joists six inches lower; when the said Cannon told the said
Oglethorpe they were but six inches deep; when the said Oglethorpe
replied, he did not care, they might take it down, and build the house
six inches lower; when the said Cannon said, that one roof would fall
lower than the other, and that therefore it would be impossible to make
the said Davison’s house tight, or keep it dry; then the said Oglethorpe
said, you might have thought of that before. And further, that the said
Oglethorpe did then say to the said Cannon, if you touch a shingle of
what the Doctor (meaning Hawkins) has put down, I’LL SHOOT YOU, to which
he added a great oath, for you have done more than you can answer in
building so high as to stop up the Doctor’s window. That the said
Davison being thus hindered from finishing his house, was forced to
remove his goods from the said house (which was quite open,) and had
only a stable for his family to be in, until this deponent left the said
Frederica, which was on the 29th of September, 1741.”[36]

We also know that Dr. Hawkins had planted two hedges on his lot but
there is no mention of fences.[37]

Samuel Davison was a chairman by trade but had been brought to Frederica
to make musket stocks. He was married and had three children. His was
probably one of the two brick houses nearing completion in November of
1736. By April of 1738 it was finished. In January 16, 1740 Davison
complained to Egmont that Dr. Hawkins said “when my house was finished
he would sell my children, one to the Carpenter, and the other to the
Plasterer that did my house, which is very cutting to a tender
parent.”[38] The deposition quoted at length on Dr. Hawkins’ house, of
course, applies to Davison’s house as well. Davison also kept a tavern
and other references indicate his lot was fenced.[39]

From these references it will be seen that the two houses were
substantial enough to leave some remains, had a party wall which would
follow the lot line, and the presumed location of the houses was in an
area not heavily farmed in the last century.

It was hoped that the location of the party wall mentioned in the
documents would lead to a determination of the present location of the
original town lot lines. In this way we could locate streets, lots,
houses and other features of the colonial town of Frederica. Rarely, I
believe, has careful documentary research been so well vindicated as in
this case. We uncovered the wall foundations of the Hawkins-Davison
houses and clearly demonstrated the present location of the line
separating South Ward Lots 1 and 2. The discovery of colonial wells
yielded an additional dividend of many objects which illustrate the
early 18th Century culture of the town of Frederica. In addition the
exposed foundations serve as a vivid illustration of the existence of an
English style of life established on the soil of Georgia.

The digging was started just to the west of the location for the two
houses indicated by Mrs. Cate. As the excavation proceeded we uncovered
the entire area of the two houses and tested the sides of the lots for
evidences of fences. The area of Broad Street was trenched to prove the
existence of the principal street. The wells encountered were cleaned as
far as time permitted. In the following account the features found will
be described in the order in which they were constructed by the
colonists rather than in the order of our discovery. This will give a
much clearer picture of what existed there in the colonial period.

All of the colonial remains were found to be covered by a deposit of
sandy humus from 0.7 to 1.0 foot deep. This had accumulated over the
foundations after the buildings collapsed in the later part of the 18th
Century. This was somewhat deeper than had been expected and indicated
the rapidity with which remains are obliterated in the lush climate of
the Golden Isles.


                          _The Hawkins House_

The house of Dr. Thomas Hawkins consisted of three rooms in ground plan
and will be discussed in the order in which the rooms were constructed.
At the west was a small room 10 feet east and west by 15.3 feet north
and south. The room had undergone three periods of building but only the
first period will concern us here. This consisted of a footing ditch 1.3
feet wide on the south and west sides. Six inch posts were placed in
this ditch at intervals of about one foot. These posts formed the
framework of a rather rude shed. The level of the floor is uncertain, as
it had been destroyed by later construction. This pole building is
believed to be the shed built at the time of the first arrival of
settlers in 1736. It evidently served as a shelter during the
construction of the main house which was built immediately to the east.
The description by Francis Moore[40] of the palmetto bowers built in
February of 1736 said that they were built on the backs of the lots.
This hut was just the sort of construction one might expect from the
description given by Moore. Yet it is on the front of the lot along
Broad Street, and not on the back. The only explanation is that Dr.
Hawkins did not build his palmetto bower on the back of his lot, or he
may have built two, one at the back and one at the front. The front one
was later incorporated into the main house.

Directly east and continuous with this original structure the main house
was erected. It measured twenty feet east-west and fifteen feet
north-south, outside dimensions. The ditches for the wall foundations
were dug to a point two and a half feet below colonial ground level. The
walls were constructed of brick 3½″ x 2½″ x 8″ so the finished wall was
one foot wide. The west wall was without a break throughout its entire
length, as was the east wall which formed the party wall with Davison’s
house. Both the north and south walls were broken by doorways three and
a half feet wide in the centers. Evidences of wooden door casings were
found in the doorways. The floor of the room had been excavated two and
a half feet below colonial ground level. It had later been raised four
times by sand fills averaging three inches in thickness. Mixed with the
sands was an occasional brick as well as a few scattered English Delft
sherds and bones of pig and beef.

It seems that the floors were made of dry-laid bricks set in sand
without mortar. As the floor was raised each time, the bricks were taken
up and replaced at the higher level. When the house was finally
abandoned, the floor bricks were salvaged and thus were absent at the
present time.

The east wall was the party wall with the Davison house. In the center
there was a brick fireplace five feet wide and two feet deep formed by
extending pilasters one foot wide out from the wall. The sides were
plastered outside and inside with a lime plaster, as were most of the
walls of the room. The fireplace had been re-built three times. The
lowest level was the same as the lowest and earliest floor level.
Subsequently the brick hearth had been removed, a sand fill five inches
deep added and the brick replaced. Similar replacements took place
whenever the floor was raised. The chimney evidently lay in the party
wall and was used by both houses, probably with separate flues. In ashes
resting on the hearth were found the broken remains of a stemmed glass
goblet. It is tempting to speculate that this is evidence of the custom
of hurling goblets, used in toasting royalty, into the fireplace;
possibly a toast to the king after the Battle of Bloody Marsh.

Between the north wall and the fireplace was a bricked area four and a
half feet wide and two feet deep. The bricks showed no evidence of wear
and this evidently represents the floor of a corner closet. The closet
had evidently been removed before the floor was raised for the last
time. On the floor lay a complete musket bayonet which had been placed
there in its sheath as the copper sheath tip covers the point of the
bayonet. There were also two parts of a door lock and a few scraps of
English Delft and lead glass.

Three and a half feet north of the north wall of the room was a brick
wall running east and west. It was connected to the main structure at
the east by a short north-south wall and seems to have been an outside
stairwell to the second floor. This wall was eleven and a half feet
long, ending at the west just opposite the western edge of the doorway.
In order to give access to the ground floor the steps must have run from
the northeast corner up to the center of the second floor. Thus the
entrance to the ground floor would be under the top of the steps. The
area between this wall and the main wall of the house was floored with
tabby which extended on the west to a point seven feet beyond the
northwest corner of the building. This tabby floor was littered with
broken crockery, glass, oyster shells, fish scales and animal bones.
Evidently household refuse was allowed to accumulate here under the
front steps, during the occupation of the house.

The next stage in the development of the house was a strengthening of
the western, original hut. This was accomplished by putting wooden forms
along the inside and outside edges of the posts of the west wall and
pouring tabby around the posts to a height of one foot. This was applied
only to the north ten posts on the west side. On the south side a series
of bricks was found that evidently served as wedges against wall posts.
The floor of the room was at this time slightly more than one and a half
feet below ground level. A remnant of brick floor remained and it seems
likely that the entire floor was bricked. The floor was littered with
fragments of small glass bottles, small white Delft ointment jars,
several glass bottle stoppers, and an ivory enema tube. This implies
that the apothecary shop of Dr. Hawkins was located in this western
room. It is suggested that the strengthening of this hut into an
addition to the house comprises the addition of half the length
mentioned by Hawkins in 1737.[41] The 1740 addition was of brick and
this west room is ten feet wide, half the length, twenty feet, of the
main house. There is evidence of later repairs to the walls of this room
but we do not know of what these alterations consisted.

During the time from 1736 to 1740 when the main room was in use two
wells were in use successively just to the rear of the Hawkins house.
First was a rectangular well three feet south of the rear wall and just
east of the back door. This well had a rectangular pit four feet square
with posts at the corners which supported a well house. The walls within
the well were held up by wooden barrels placed one above another with
the ends knocked out. The well was six and a half feet deep and there
was less than one foot of water in this well. Several peach pits were
found in the base of this well. The next well was circular directly
south of the back door. It was dug six and a half feet deep and six feet
in diameter. The well proper was bricked in, with a diameter of three
feet. This well contained a variety of objects that had evidently been
included in household trash which was used to fill up the well when it
was abandoned. They consisted of:

  1 small lead glass round bottle, 50cc. capacity
  1 square bottle, 1 pint capacity, probably a snuff bottle
  1 round bottle, 28 ounces capacity
  1 English brown salt glaze stoneware bottle
  1 English brown and gray salt glaze stoneware mug
  1 English white salt glaze stoneware mug
  1 Small white English Delft ointment jar
  1 yellow and brown striped lead glaze pot with handle
  1 Japanese Imara porcelain bowl, blue on white with red and gilt
              overglaze enamels
  1 claw hammer, complete with handle
  a quantity of watermelon seeds and peach pits.

The well was abandoned and filled when it was decided to make another
addition to the house. Tabby floor was laid over the filled well and
soon sank slightly into the well.

The last addition to the Hawkins house was made at the back and measured
sixteen and a half feet north-south and eighteen and a half feet
east-west. The western side was aligned with the western wall of the
main house, but the eastern wall did not use the party wall. Instead
there was a gap of one and a half feet between the back rooms of the
Hawkins and Davison houses. The brick of the walls measured 4″ x 2″ x
9″, definitely larger than those of the main house. At the southeast
corner there was a large buttress outside the wall, evidently part of a
chimney foundation. Inside the southeast corner was a corner fireplace
set diagonally across the corner. As the tabby floor of this back room
sank into the old well the depression was filled in with more tabby and
later another floor level was added. There is some evidence that finally
a wooden floor was installed, over the tabby.

There is no evidence as to the height of this back addition to the
Hawkins house. However, the Roberson statement of 1741[42] says that
Oglethorpe stood in the window and put his head between the joists of
Davison’s house. It is further stated that Oglethorpe’s action involved
the roof levels of the two houses. Thus it seems reasonable to assume
that the joists mentioned are roof joists. As the only place in the
Hawkins house where a window could face the Davison house is in the
narrow gap between the south addition and the Davison house it seems
this addition must have been three stories high. As this was the only
addition to the house that was made of brick it seems to correspond to
that mentioned as being completed by August of 1740 which cost £60.[43]

One other well belonging to the Hawkins lot was forty feet west of the
house just inside the western line of the lot. It was circular and
probably had a well house over it. Slightly over six feet deep the walls
were supported by another series of bottomless barrels. It also had been
filled with household trash including a very fine musket bayonet. All
these wells had planks laid across the bottom, apparently to prevent the
well bucket from muddying the well. This last well had in addition a
large square post of unknown use resting on the plank. Just west of the
well was a poorly defined line of root disturbances which may mark the
location of the hedge of pomegranates mentioned for Dr. Hawkins lot.[44]


                          _The Davison House_

The home of Samuel Davison lay to the east of the east wall of the
Hawkins house. The front room was seventeen feet east-west and eighteen
feet north-south. Directly back of this was an additional room twenty
and a half feet east-west and eleven feet north-south. The east wall,
however, was straight, the extra three and a half feet being taken up by
a stairwell along the east side of the north room. The floor of the
north room had originally been excavated to a level two feet four inches
below colonial ground level. Only a disturbed sand strata remained of
the lowest floor level, and it is not possible to determine of what the
floor was originally composed. It was soon covered with a tabby floor
whose upper surface was two feet below ground level. This floor was
later covered by a brick floor, set with tabby mortar in a herringbone
pattern. In the middle of the east wall there was a doorway four feet
four inches wide opening into the stairwell on that side. The floor of
this door appears to have joined a stair up to the stairwell, possibly
to both sides. In the southeast corner of the north room was another
doorway of the same width. A short flight of steps remained leading from
the floor level up to the south. The steps are of brick with a four inch
wooden nosing.

The north wall and the north half of the east wall were of brick. The
south half of the east wall and the south wall were tabby. In the middle
of the west (party) wall, directly opposite the fireplace of Dr. Hawkins
house, was a fireplace five feet wide. It was formed by two short
pilasters extending out from the wall. At first these were slightly less
than two feet long, but they were lengthened at a later date to slightly
less than three feet. The walls as well as the fireplace were plastered.
This, however, was not the finished wall. The brick and tabby floors did
not come up quite to the wall. The space between the floor and wall,
four inches wide, had contained wooden lath and a plaster coat “furred”
out from the masonry or tabby wall. This gave the room a double wall and
certainly made it drier and warmer than a plastered brick or tabby wall,
as in the case of the Hawkins house. This suggests an explanation for
the remark attributed to Dr. Hawkins, that he would sell the Davison
children, “one to the Carpenter and the other to the Plasterer.”[45] It
is perhaps understandable that the village doctor and magistrate would
be irritated that his neighbor could afford a tighter, drier house. The
south room was larger than the north but not so elaborately finished.
Perhaps in this case the boys in the back room were the less favored
customers at the Davison tavern. The walls appear to have been brick
with the exception of the north wall which was tabby. All the walls had
been salvaged down to the bottom course of brick so that it is not sure
that they may have been of wood or tabby on a brick footing. However,
the footings appear to be so similar to those for the other brick walls
that I think we may conclude that they were, in fact, brick. The remains
of a tabby floor covered part of the room area and it is possible the
entire floor was so paved. There is a suggestion of steps down from
outside to the northeast corner of the room, but very little remained in
this section and the size of these steps cannot be determined. Just
north of the Davison house a narrow ditch running parallel to the front
wall was found. It is not certain what this represents except that it is
clearly some sort of front fence.

Samuel Davison ran a tavern and it seems the lower floor of his house
was the tap room. The large quantity of bottle fragments and stoneware
mug fragments found around the house support this view. A total of 651
pieces of clay pipe bowls and stems were found in and around the house.
They reflect the 18th Century custom of smoking in the taverns and give
some idea of the frequency of smoking as well as the fragility of the
pipes used.

The Davison lot was supposed to be completely fenced and efforts were
made to locate the evidences of these fences along the east, west, and
south sides. A row of postholes was found along the west side to the
southwest corner and followed a short distance along the south side. The
east side seemed to have another fence, but it was obscured by a series
of wells as that along the west side of the Hawkins lot had been.

South of the Davison lot an open space fourteen feet three inches wide
was found. South of that tabby remains were found, but time and funds
did not permit their exploration. The Miller map of 1796 gives the width
of the first street south of Broad Street as 14 feet. The open space
south of the corner of lot 2 fits this width quite nicely. The 1736
Auspourger map says that the width of street “C” is sixteen feet. Only
more thorough excavation will clear up this point. In any case the tabby
to the south would be the remains of a building on South Ward Lot 19,
belonging to Thomas Sumner, or to South Ward Lot 20, belonging to Daniel
Prevost. The southwest corner of South Ward Lot 2, Samuel Davison, was
located with some accuracy. Measuring north ninety feet, along the line
of the party wall, the northwest corner was found to be three feet north
of the northwest corner of the Davison house. The front stairwell of the
Hawkins house extended out into the street alignment a matter of six
inches. This line between lots 1 and 2 was taken as the base for laying
out the grid of town lots as shown on the Miller and Auspourger maps.
The town grid fits very well with the present contours that seem to
represent colonial features. It can be assumed that the town grid of
Frederica has again been determined. It should be possible to locate any
specific town lot from the information now in hand.

Along the east side of the Davison lot a series of pits was excavated in
an attempt to locate the fence along that side. There were postholes
that very probably represent the fence but the area was taken up largely
by three wells, two round and one square. Time permitted only the
clearing of the square one. This well was exactly what might be expected
on the Davison lot, the upper part had been filled with a solid mass of
fragments of bottles, a total of five thousand three hundred and
ninety-five pieces. The quantities of glass and other household refuse
in this and other wells suggest that the colonists saved such materials
to fill old wells.


                             _Broad Street_

The present contours of the Frederica surface showed a depression,
approximately ninety feet wide north and south and 190 feet long east
and west, just in front of the Hawkins-Davison houses. East of this a
similar depression extended on to the break in the town rampart which
was believed to be the location of the town gate. This series of
depressions had been considered as the trace of Broad Street. A trench
was extended across the area to check the presumed location of the main
street of the town. No definite evidence of Broad Street was found.
There were no roadside ditches or any evidence of any sort of surfacing.
Sixty-four feet north of the Hawkins front steps there was a slight
depression in the old land surface. This ditch extended north another
twenty feet. At that point a low ridge bounded the depression on the
north.

The Miller map shows the width of Broad Street as 82 feet, while Francis
Moore says it was twenty-five yards wide[46] and the Auspourger map says
seventy-five feet. The contours of the ground fit the figure of
eighty-two feet best. Until the recent discovery of the Auspourger Map
of 1736, it had been assumed that the Francis Moore figure was an
estimate and the Miller map gave the true width of Broad Street. Now
that the 1736 map and Francis Moore both agree it may be assumed that
Broad Street was laid out with a width of seventy-five feet. We know
that the front steps of the Hawkins house infringed on the street a
matter of six inches. The depression in the old land surface at the
north side of the street marks the edge of the road in that area.
Further work will possibly locate fences or hedge lines that will
clarify this point.


                          _The Mark Carr Lot_

At a point ninety-two feet north of the Hawkins house our excavation
uncovered the remains of a tabby wall. It was badly decayed and was
surrounded by the usual household debris which marks the sites of
houses. It evidently marks the south or front wall of a house, built of
tabby, on Lot 1 of the North Ward. This lot belonged to Mark Carr,
founder of Brunswick. At the present time no records of a building on
this lot are known. Time and funds did not permit further exploration of
the structure.


                            _The Artifacts_

Colonial archaeology is particularly fascinating because of the great
quantities and intrinsic interest of the artifacts recovered. These
objects are usually recognizable in spite of breakage and corrosion.
They immediately call to mind a host of associations and functions that
do much to enrich the picture of a living community. In many cases they
are objects of considerable esthetic appeal and are prime museum
exhibits. No detailed discussion of the various classes of colonial
relics can be made here. It will be sufficient to call attention to
those of special interest.

Items of military equipment were in a definite minority in the
Hawkins-Davison houses. Those of us who have been working at Frederica
have come to think its military aspects outweighed the civilian facets.
In these two houses a few musket balls, two bayonets, and one sword
scabbard tip indicate clearly that Frederica enjoyed a life with a
minimum of emphasis on the martial, at least for the non-garrison
people. Hinges, locks, nails, and other hardware give us a good idea of
how the houses were constructed and furnished as to doors and windows.
In this connection the great quantities of window glass may surprise
many. What might be called the Daniel Boone Tradition has conditioned us
to think of our colonial ancestors living in poorly lighted log cabins.
Here at Frederica the wealthy, at least, lived in brick and tabby houses
with completely glazed windows.

    [Illustration: _Salt glaze stoneware mugs found in excavation of
    Hawkins-Davison houses_]

    [Illustration: _The range of bottle sizes found in excavation of
    Hawkins-Davison houses_]

Many of the objects fall into the personal ornament and clothing class.
Buckles were very common, of iron or brass and often tastefully
ornamented. Buttons were generally of brass but several gilded or gold
plated examples exist. Two single cuff-links or frogs were found. Both
were made of copper or brass and set with small blue “stones” of glass.
Coins were relatively rare, only three being found. All are George II
English pennies bearing the dates of 1739, 1738, and 1757. Household
objects included a brass candle-stick base, forks, knives, and spoons,
one complete pewter spoon being found. A clock key bears the Latin motto
“Tempora Mutant,” perhaps fitting for the stirring times in which Dr.
Hawkins lived. Common pins were much like the modern ones and illustrate
how little some everyday objects have changed in two centuries.

Ceramics are usually of great interest to the archaeologist because they
reflect so clearly the changing styles and technology of the times. A
wide variety of pottery and porcelain was found, surprisingly varied, as
the excavations in the regimental barracks had led us to expect a rather
limited variety. The great majority were simple earthenwares with
various lead glazes. These were made in England and used for kitchen and
domestic purposes. They range from large bowls to small oven casseroles.
A few sherds of Spanish olive jars were found, evidently loot from
Oglethorpe’s expeditions against Spanish Florida.

There was a large group of soft-paste ceramics with yellow and brown
glazes that are the forerunners of the famous Staffordshire potteries.
The design is a random trailing of brown lines on a yellow ground. They
were apparently more kitchen than table wares. Especially common around
the Davison house were pieces of English salt glazed stoneware mugs.
White, grey, and brown examples were found. All are tall mugs with large
handles on the side. They were apparently the common ale or porter mug
of the Davison tavern. Red and tan wares of the Nottingham type were in
a minority.

The chief table ware in both the Hawkins and Davison houses was the blue
on white soft-paste ware called variously English Delft or English
Faience. It is decorated with tin enamels on a soft body, generally in
blue on white; although green, red, and brown do occur. The designs
mostly copy Chinese porcelains and quite a variety is known. From the
Hawkins house and wells we have a number of small white English Delft
jars that are evidently medicinal ointment containers. All the fragments
found here seem to have been made in England, presumably in Lambeth or
Bristol. It is clearly the common table ware of the better sort for the
early 18th Century.

A relatively large number of porcelain sherds were found, especially in
and near the Hawkins house. At first it was assumed that this was
Chinese export porcelain. Expert identification indicates that the bulk
of this porcelain is Japanese Imara ware. It was somewhat surprising as
little trade with Japan might be expected in the first half of the 18th
Century. Occasional pieces of Japanese porcelain had been noted from
Spanish sites in Florida but such a large collection had not previously
been located. The bulk of the porcelain is blue and white in floral
designs. Sometimes green, pink, and gilt were added over-glaze to form
very attractive decorations on handleless cups and shallow saucers.
Several pieces of Chinese porcelain are included in the group. All this
is another illustration of the rather luxurious life of some of the
colonists. True porcelain then, as now, was expensive, especially so as
it was not made to any extent in Europe at the time and the pieces had
to be brought from China or Japan.

Glass formed an important part of the collections and consisted of
several kinds. The most common was a squat round bottle of a light
chartreuse color which appears black by reflected light. A few square
bottles of the “Case Bottle” type are represented, but most were of the
round type. Smaller bottles were usually in a clear or faintly bluish
glass. The numbers found around Dr. Hawkins house suggest that they were
medicine containers. Two types of glasses were present: tumblers and
stemmed goblets. The tumblers were rare and the prevalent type of
drinking glass was the stemmed goblet. Many of the stems had enclosed
tear drops and some had engraved designs around the rims.

In the wells organic materials were preserved below waterline. Barrel
staves and other wooden objects were quite common. Peach pits, squash,
and gourd seeds indicate some of the agricultural products. The second
Hawkins well, sealed in 1740 by the back addition to the house,
contained a number of peach pits. It seems doubtful that trees would
have grown to bearing size in the four years since the founding of the
town and one wonders if these pits may not be derived from Spanish trees
found growing on the island.

It is difficult to summarize the results of these excavations in that
the material found is really simply a demonstration of the facts learned
from the documentary research already so ably conducted by Mrs. Margaret
Davis Cate. However, we can point out that the Hawkins-Davison house
proved to be exactly where the documents said it would be. All the
additions and dimensions given in the colonial sources were demonstrated
to correspond closely to those given. The location of the streets and
their size agree closely with that given on early maps and the location
of the town grid of Frederica now can be presumed to be firmly
established. Of course, any excavation only whets the appetite for more
and we hope to uncover more of the old Town of Frederica. In the
artifacts we find a reflection of the life of the times. Each
householder had in his home certain items of military equipment and was
prepared to stand to the defense of his town and colony should the
occasion arise. The houses, of some at least, were well built of brick
and tabby, well glazed and sturdy if not commodious. Household
appointments were as good as England, with her world trade, could
provide at the time. The sturdy houses, lead glass goblets, and Japanese
porcelain show that the colonists introduced into the new colony a
gracious way of life such as was enjoyed in a highly prosperous England.




                               FOOTNOTES


[1]Well-known historian of Coastal Georgia and Historical Collaborator
    of the National Park Service for the Fort Frederica Project.

[2]Published as Volume IV of the _Collections of the Georgia Historical
    Society_ (Savannah, 1878). Jones gave no source for this map, but it
    has been identified by the author as a small detail from a large map
    of St. Simons Island made in 1739 by Capt. John Thomas, Engineer in
    Oglethorpe’s Regiment. The original manuscript map is now in the
    Crown Collection in the British Museum (with a copy in the Library
    of Congress), catalogued CXXII-71a.

[3]Robert & George Watkins, comps., _A Digest of the Laws of the State
    of Georgia ..._ (Philadelphia, 1800), 599.

[4]These original manuscript maps were discovered by Nathaniel Harrison
    Ballard, State Superintendent of Schools for Georgia, among
    uncatalogued papers in the office of Georgia’s Secretary of State.
    They are now in the Georgia Department of Archives and History and
    their first publication was in Margaret Davis Cate, _Our Todays and
    Yesterdays_, (Brunswick, Ga., 1930), 57, 60.

[5]Allen D. Candler, ed., _Colonial Records of the State of Georgia_ (25
    vols. Vol. XX, not published. Atlanta, 1904-1916), XXII, Pt. I, 280;
    XXXIX, 433, 479. _Collections of the Georgia Historical Society_, I
    (Savannah, 1840), 192.

[6]Candler, ed., _Colonial Records of Georgia_, XXII, Pt. I, 279.

[7]_Collections of The Georgia Historical Society_, II (Savannah, 1842),
    113, 150.

[8]Candler, ed., _Colonial Records of Georgia_, VI, 146.

[9]_Ibid._, X, 79.

[10]This Christian Perkins who petitioned for Dr. Hawkins’ lot came to
    Georgia as Christian Grant. Several of her brothers, all of whom
    were indentured servants, came at the same time. (E. M. Coulter and
    A. B. Saye, eds., _A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia_ (Athens,
    1949), 19. One of these, Peter Grant, fought at the Battle of Bloody
    Marsh and spent the rest of his life on St. Simons Island, where he
    died in 1804 at the age of eighty-four. [George White, _Statistics
    of the State of Georgia_ (Savannah, 1849), 283; _Coll. Ga. Hist.
    Soc._ I, 284n]. Christian Grant married John Perkins and after his
    death married Francis Lewis. In her will (executed in 1786 and
    recorded in 1811) on file in Chatham County, Georgia, Court House
    (Will Book E, 84), she left her Frederica lots (17N and 1S) to her
    brother, Peter Grant. However, in 1789 she executed a deed
    transferring lot 17N “to my loving nephew ... Thomas Grant, son of
    my brother, Peter Grant.” (Glynn County, Ga., Deed Book CD, 168).

[11]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, X, 382.

[12]Georgia Department of Archives and History. Grant Book H, 27.

[13]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, II, 150.

[14]_Ibid._, V, 284.

[15]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXII, Pt. II, 387; Egmont Manuscripts
    in Phillipps Collection in University of Georgia Library no. 14205,
    p. 253.

[16]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, II, 278-79, 434; XXX, 125.

[17]_Ibid._, II, 346-48; V, 400, 564-65; XXIX, 404; XXX, 280, 301.

[18]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXIII, 425; Egmont Manuscripts,
    Phillipps Collection, no 14205, p. 253.

[19]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXIII, 63.

[20]_Ibid._, XXIII, 31.

[21]_Ibid._, XXXIII, 198; Egmont Manuscripts, Phillipps Collection, no.
    14205, pp. 204, 256.

[22]Coulter and Saye, eds., _A List of the Early Settlers of Georgia_,
    56, 101.

[23]Nehemiah Curnock, ed., _The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M._
    (8 vols. London, 1938), I, 124-65.

[24]_Ibid._, I, 189, 263, 264.

[25]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, V, 606.

[26]_Ibid._, XXI, 319; Thomas Jackson, _The Life of the Rev. Charles
    Wesley, M. A._ (New York, 1842), 64.

[27]Egmont, Manuscripts, Phillipps Collection, no. 14204, pp. 281, 295;
    Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXIII, 44, 45; XXX, 137, 142, 143,
    266.

[28]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXII Pt. I, 143, 145-47.

[29]_Ibid._, XXIII, 464.

[30]Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology,
    Florida State University, Tallahassee.

[31]Egmont Manuscripts in Phillipps Collection in University of Georgia
    Library, no. 14203, p. 239.

[32]Francis Moore, “A Voyage to Georgia” in _Collections of the Georgia
    Historical Society_, I (Savannah, 1840), 114.

[33]Egmont Manuscripts, Phillipps Collection, no. 14202, p. 213.

[34]Allen D. Candler, ed., _Colonial Records of the State of Georgia_
    (25 vols. Vol. XX not published. Atlanta. 1904-1916), XXII, Pt. I,
    16.

[35]Egmont Manuscripts, Phillipps Collection, no. 14205, p. 95.

[36]_Collections of the Georgia Historical Society_, II (Savannah,
    1842), 112-13.

[37]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXII, Pt. II, 453.

[38]Phillipps Collection, no. 14202, p. 123; no. 14203, p. 123; no.
    14204, p. 293.

[39]_Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Diary of Viscount Percival,
    Afterwards First Earl of Egmont_ (3 vols. London, 1920-1923), III,
    216; Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, V, 501.

[40]“A Voyage to Georgia,” 114.

[41]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXII, Pt. I, 16.

[42]_Collections of the Georgia Historical Society_, II, 112.

[43]Egmont Manuscripts, Phillipps Collection, no. 14205, p. 95.

[44]Candler, ed., _Col. Rec. Ga._, XXII, Pt. II, 453.

[45]Egmont Manuscripts, no. 14204, p. 293.

[46]Moore, “A Voyage to Georgia,” 114.




                          Transcriber’s Notes


—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
  is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
  _underscores_.